The Washington critic., 1887-02-21
WASHINGTON, FEBRUARy 81, 1887.
NOT SENTIMENT. hut SENSE.

ne proposed Cnangc OF tue uhy OF
inauguration from the ith of March to
the last Tuesday of April, If the
Boston Gi0bG is to be believed Is
hardly worth making" for the reason
that, according to our esteemed and
enterprising contemporary, at is
largely urge d on sentimental grounds. 4"
The Gl1Jo could not have made n
bigger mistake in regard TO this matter
II 1t had set ont with deliberate pur.
pose 10 be mistaken. In fact, the ele.
ment of sentiment figures So little In the
consideration of the question. that on
this ground alone. it would never
probably have been presented to the
ATTENTION of Congress.
There would be- u certain historic
proriie,y, sentimental II you please to
call II SO, though In 10 sense obliga.
tory, in having our Presidents innugu-
rated uron the same date that the First
President was installed, especially II
that day is TO be made an anniversary
for public observance. But the change
is chiefly to be desired aud has been so
urged on account OF the more pro-
pitious weather for outdoor cere.
monials ard festivities that is likely to
prevail at Washington toward the last
Of April than at the beginning of March.
And this is something that concerns
many thousands Of people, and is cer-
tain to concern many additional thou.
sands from Inauguration to inaugura.
lion hereafter.
The 4th Of March, 1885, was as
delightful and balmy day as one
could wish, but this was Cleveland s
luck and may never happen again.
The night before the 4th of March.
1881, there was snow.storm and the
streets on the following day were in a
wretched condition. On the day that
General Grant was first inaugurated
the weather was so intensely cold that
sickness and death were results of the
exposure. 1t is to obviatc contingen.
cies like these that the advocates of
the pending resolution desire change,
and, in the selection Of day far
enough advanced in the season, de.
cided upon the 3Oth of April as an.
swering all climatic requirements, and,
at the same time, possessing an ami
versary character that made the choice
peculiarly appropriate. Now let the
GlojC, with clearer understanding of
the situation, no longer condemn the
proposition with faint praise, but urge
II upon our hes!tating, half.hearted
friends of the Judiciary Committee as
duty they owe to the country.
ANONYMOUS PUBLICATIONS.
If it be so, as the Post suggests, that
the communications lately received by
the President commencing his action
in vetoing the Dependent Pension bill
were of such confidential character
MS TO preclude all mention of names
and dates, we submit that 1t must have
been little violation OF confidence to
have printed them even anonymously,
with the natural result of putting the
public upon the scent of their authors.
1t is more than probable, however,
that none of the writer's Of these let.
tiers, If what they said was said in good
faith, would have made the slightest
objection TO the publication of their
names and residences. An objection
TO such publicity simply throws doubt
upon the honesty and sincerity of their
utterances.
But the point we desired to make was
that the communications, however en-
couraging aud gratifying they may
have been to the President, can have no
Influence whatever upon Congress or in
circles where influence Is needed be-
cause they lack that Identification
which alone is calculated to give them
weight and force.
To illustrate for the edificatlon of our
esteemed contemporary, the President
is In receipt of vigorous letter of CON.
mendation from General Daniel T..
Sickles, in which, as a soldier, he
thanks the Chief Executive for
Sustaining the honor of the pension
roll" There is meat in this, and 1t
cannot fail to have an effect in the right
direction, and solely for the reason that
Dan Sickles wrote It. There Is no
skulkiIg here behind au anonymous
signature-nothing mythical about It.
So with the manly and outsplken
views Of General Joshua l.. Chamber.
lain. eX Governor Of Maine, a soldier
Of high renown and many frightful
gears. What he says in favor
of the bill goes straight to
the understanding OF every intelligent
member of Congress, not so much for
the language used as from the fact that
General Chamberlain used Il. 1t is tue
10 strong individuality of these indorse.
ments that gives them value, aud with.
out this authoritative seal of genuine.
ness, their publication would have been
without interest and OF M avail.
The pension bill in favor of John
Reed, ST., which the President vetoed
Saturday, presents some extraordinary
features, as will appear by the message
accompanying the returned bill, which
will he found elsewhere in tod iy's
Critic. If the records Of this case are
correctly stated, Mr.. Cleveland Is GER.
tainly justified in disappearing the bill,
but the wonder is how such loglsla.
tion should have ever passed the
House. We were inclined to think
last winter when the President was
yetoiDg private pension bills that 1t
might be as well for him perhaps to de-